## Facts

- A public roadway ran adjacent to a golf course, separated from a teeing area by distance and trees.
- Arthur McGovern hit a tee shot that unintentionally veered off the fairway, traveled through or over trees, and struck Roberta Rinaldo’s moving car, shattering the windshield and injuring her.
- Plaintiffs alleged McGovern was negligent (1) in mishitting the shot and (2) in failing to warn (e.g., by yelling “fore”) before striking the ball toward the road.
- The record contained no evidence that McGovern was careless in taking the shot; plaintiffs offered evidence that slicing is common and that McGovern tended to slice.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to McGovern dismissing the claims; the Appellate Division affirmed with dissent; plaintiffs appealed as of right, with only McGovern’s liability remaining at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether a golfer owes a legal duty to warn persons on an adjacent public roadway before hitting a shot, and whether failure to warn is actionable when the warning would likely be ineffective.
2. Whether a golfer may be held liable in negligence to a person outside the course boundaries for a stray, mishit ball absent proof the golfer failed to exercise due care (e.g., by aiming so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk).

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for McGovern and dismissed both theories of liability.
- The failure-to-warn claim failed because any warning was too unlikely to be heard and acted upon by a motorist on the roadway to justify imposing a duty or submitting causation to a jury.
- The negligent-shot claim failed because plaintiffs showed only that the ball was mishit and that slicing is common; they did not produce evidence that McGovern’s manner of play on the shot unreasonably increased the risk to roadway users.

## Legal Principles

- A golfer is not ordinarily liable to individuals entirely outside a golf course’s boundaries who are struck by a stray, mishit ball.
- To recover, an injured plaintiff must affirmatively prove the golfer failed to exercise due care, such as by aiming so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm.
- A duty to warn will not be imposed where the chance that a warning would prevent the injury is too remote; tort liability requires not only foreseeability but that the proposed precaution would make the harm reasonably preventable on the facts.

## Conclusion

The court held that a mishit golf shot reaching a public road does not, by itself, establish negligence, and it declined to impose a warning duty where a shouted warning would likely be ineffective; without proof of unreasonable conduct or a workable precaution, the golfer had no tort liability.


Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 N.Y.2d 729, 587 N.E.2d 264 (N.Y. 1991)